October 4, 2012

The two W. M. Keck Telescopes on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, observing the galactic center. The lasers are used to create an artificial star in the Earths upper atmosphere, which is then used to measure the blurring effects of the lower atmosphere (the effect that makes the stars twinkle in the night sky). The blurring gets corrected in real time with the help of a deformable mirror. This is the adaptive optics technique. Credit: Ethan Tweedie

UCLA astronomers report the discovery of a remarkable star that orbits the enormous black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy in a blistering 11-and-a-half years—the shortest known orbit of any star near this black hole.

The star, known as S0-102, may help astronomers discover whether Albert Einstein was right in his fundamental prediction of how black holes warp space and time, said research co-author Andrea Ghez, leader of the discovery team and a UCLA professor of physics and astronomy who holds the Lauren B. Leichtman and Arthur E. Levine Chair in Astrophysics.

The research is published Oct. 5 in the journal Science.

Before this discovery, astronomers knew of only one star with a very short orbit near the black hole: S0-2, which Ghez used to call her "favorite star" and whose orbit is 16 years. (The "S" is for Sagittarius, the constellation containing the galactic center and the black hole).

"I'm extremely pleased to find two stars that orbit our galaxy's supermassive black hole in much less than a human lifetime," said Ghez, who studies 3,000 stars that orbit the black hole, and has been studying S0-2 since 1995. Most of the stars have orbits of 60 years or longer, she said.

"It is the tango of S0-102 and S0-2 that will reveal the true geometry of space and time near a black hole for the first time," Ghez said. "This measurement cannot be done with one star alone."

Black holes, which form out of the collapse of matter, have such high density that nothing can escape their gravitational pull, not even light. They cannot be seen directly, but their influence on nearby stars is visible and provides a signature, said Ghez, a 2008 MacArthur Fellow.

Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that mass distorts space and time and therefore not only slows down the flow of time but also stretches or shrinks distances.

"Today, Einstein is in every iPhone, because the GPS system would not work without his theory," said Leo Meyer, a researcher in Ghez's team and lead author of the study. "What we want to find out is, would your phone also work so close to a black hole? The newly discovered star puts us in a position to answer that question in the future."

"The fact that we can find stars that are so close to the black hole is phenomenal," said Ghez, who also directs the UCLA Galactic Center Group. "Now it's a whole new ballgame, in terms of the kinds of experiments we can do to understand how black holes grow over time, the role supermassive black holes play in the center of galaxies, and whether Einstein's theory of general relativity is valid near a black hole, where this theory has never been tested before. It's exciting to now have a means to open up this window.

"This should not be a neighborhood where stars feel particularly welcome," she added. "But surprisingly, it seems that black holes are not as hostile to stars as was previously speculated."

Over the past 17 years, Ghez and colleagues have used the W.M. Keck Observatory, which sits atop Hawaii's dormant Mauna Kea volcano, to image the galactic center at the highest angular resolution possible. They use a powerful technology, which Ghez helped to pioneer, called adaptive optics to correct the distorting effects of the Earth's atmosphere in real time. With adaptive optics at the Keck Observatory, Ghez and her colleagues have revealed many surprises about the environments surrounding supermassive black holes, discovering, for example, young stars where none were expected and seeing a lack of old stars where many were anticipated.

"The Keck Observatory has been the leader in adaptive optics for more than a decade and has enabled us to achieve tremendous progress in correcting the distorting effects of the Earth's atmosphere with high–angular resolution imaging," Ghez said. "It's really exciting to have access to the world's largest and best telescope. It is why I came to UCLA and why I stay at UCLA."

In the same way that planets orbit around the sun, S0-102 and S0-2 are each in an elliptical orbit around the galaxy's central black hole. The planetary motion in our solar system was the ultimate test for Newton's gravitational theory 300 years ago; the motion of S0-102 and S0-2, Ghez said, will be the ultimate test for Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes gravity as a consequence of the curvature of space and time.

"The exciting thing about seeing stars go through their complete orbit is not only that you can prove that a black hole exists but you have the first opportunity to test fundamental physics using the motions of these stars," Ghez said. "Showing that it goes around in an ellipse provides the mass of the supermassive black hole, but if we can improve the precision of the measurements, we can see deviations from a perfect ellipse—which is the signature of general relativity."

As the stars come to their closest approach, their motion will be affected by the curvature of spacetime, and the light traveling from the stars to us will be distorted, Ghez said.

S0-2, which is 15 times brighter than S0-102, will go through its closest approach to the black hole in 2018.

The deviation from a perfect ellipse is very small and requires extremely precise measurements. Over the last 15 years, Ghez and her colleagues have dramatically improved their ability to make these measurements.

Co-authors on the research include Mark Morris, a professor of physics and astronomy at UCLA, and Eric Becklin, UCLA professor emeritus of physics and astronomy.

Ghez's research

In 1998, Ghez answered one of astronomy's most important questions, showing that a monstrous black hole resides at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, some 26,000 light-years away from Earth, with a mass approximately 4 million times that of the sun. The question had been a subject of raging debate among astronomers for more than a quarter of a century.

In 2000, she and colleagues reported that for the first time, astronomers had seen stars accelerate around the supermassive black hole. Their research demonstrated that three stars had accelerated by more than 250,000 mph a year as they orbited the black hole. The speed of S0-102 and S0-2 should also accelerate by more than 250,000 mph at their closest approach, Ghez said.

In 2003, Ghez reported that the case for the Milky Way's black hole had been strengthened substantially and that all of the proposed alternatives could be excluded. In 2005, she and her colleagues took the first clear picture of the center of the Milky Way, including the area surrounding the black hole, using laser guide star adaptive optics technology at the Keck Observatory.

"The pivotal research by Ghez's UCLA group using the Keck Observatory has evolved from proving that a supermassive black hole exists in the center of our galaxy to testing the very fundamentals of physics," said Taft Armandroff, director of the W.M. Keck Observatory. "This is truly an exciting time in astronomy."

Ghez's research program currently receives its primary funding from the National Science Foundation, the Keck Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Lauren B. Leichtman and Arthur E. Levine Family Foundation, with additional funding from the Preston Family Endowed Graduate Fellowship in Astrophysics (supported by Howard and Astrid Preston), the Janet Marott Student Travel Awards, and the Gordon Binder Post-doctoral Fellowship. Significant funding was also provided by the Packard Foundation for early stages of this work.

Ghez is the first woman to receive the prestigious Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which she was awarded this May.

Related Stories

(PhysOrg.com) -- Weighing 6.6 billion solar masses, the black hole at the center of galaxy M87 is the most massive black hole for which a precise mass has been measured. Using the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini Telescope on ...

A galaxy's core is a busy place, crowded with stars swarming around an enormous black hole. When galaxies collide, it gets even messier as the two black holes spiral toward each other, merging to make an even bigger gravitational ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes, one of the most amazing and bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity, are irresistible sinks for matter and energy. They are so dense that not even light can escape from their gravitational ...

Supermassive black holes - objects with masses of millions or even billions of suns - are found at the nuclei of galaxies. Our Milky Way galaxy, for example, has a massive black hole at its core, albeit one that is relatively ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have found a cluster of young, blue stars encircling the first intermediate-mass black hole ever discovered. The presence of the star cluster suggests that ...

Recommended for you

What if I told you that recent experiments have revealed a revolutionary new method of propulsion that threatens to overthrow the laws of physics as we know them? That its inventor claims it could allow us to travel to the ...

The coalescence of two black holes—a very violent and exotic event—is one of the most sought-after observations of modern astronomy. But, as these mergers emit no light of any kind, finding such elusive events has been ...

The recent discovery of an Earth twin has boosted chances there is intelligent life on other planets. But while Pope Francis's telescope scans the starlit skies, the Vatican is sceptical of ever meeting Mr. Spock.

A dying star's final moments are captured in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The death throes of this star may only last mere moments on a cosmological timescale, but this star's demise is still quite ...

79 comments

... therefore not only slows down the flow of time but also stretches or shrinks distances.

This is what happens when scientific 'establisment' becomes an incestuous circle of 'believers' in their own nonsense fairy stories about the actual observations. They twist that observed reality into nonsense to fit theory rather than the other way round. Clock processes 'tick off' time/rate. Internal energy content correlates to internal inertia/resistance to 'change' and 'process'. Higher energy content in 'clocks' means higher internal inertia/resistance, so SLOWER RATE of 'clock' process, and hence SLOWER 'rate' of 'ticking-off' NUMBER of seconds. Hence distance traveled IS WHAT IT IS, while it's only NUMBER of seconds 'ticked off' that is REDUCED. So distance-over-seconds SEEMS to imply 'less distance' but it's clock-tick 'count' ONLY, and NOT TIME OR DISTANCE that has slowed or shrunk! "Establishment" myths are difficult to dispel. Buyer beware!(Caveat Emptor!)

RealityCheck - you need a reality check dude. Are you seriously trying to somehow dispute Einsteins theory of gravitation? It may be true than an editorial like this one uses the same sort of geometric metaphors that Einstein used in explaining his theories, but that neither negates or changes ANYTHING that was said. It certainly doesn't suggest some sort of "Establishment Myth".

RealityCheck - you need a reality check dude. Are you seriously trying to somehow dispute Einsteins theory of gravitation? It may be true than an editorial like this one uses the same sort of geometric metaphors that Einstein used in explaining his theories, but that neither negates or changes ANYTHING that was said. It certainly doesn't suggest some sort of "Establishment Myth".

You misunderstood me, mate. GR is quite safe for the moment (geometric theory awaiting REALITY physical mechanisms to 'flesh out' its bare 'mathematical bones'). :) The point was, ENERGY CONTENT affects 'timing/counting' mechanism IRRESPECTIVE of whether the energy comes from GR Gravity (potential/acceleration energy) OR whether it comes from SR (velocity/kinetic energy imparted by the inertial accelerations). See? The clock counter 'value' is key to distance-over-seconds calculations by OBSERVER; who currently misinterpret that as time 'slowing' and distance 'shrinking', as explained. :)

Who are you to say what is and isn't shrunk to the other observer?...What makes your reference frame a spacial case?

Exactly my point. What makes the observer who INTERPRETS observations as 'time slowing' and 'distance shrinking"? It is his 'calculation' distance-over-time based on LESSER cumulative seconds-count from GR/SR-affected clocks, as I explained before (pls also read my reply to Parsec). It is the current ASSUMPTIONS that ignore the peculiar/proper SR/GR related ENERGY CONTENT VARIATIONS imparted to clock 'count'. The REALITY is observed, these UN-real 'interpretations' are made according to unnecessary theoretical assumptions which are not necessary to explain what IS observed and KNOWN from direct comparisons of affected-clock 'count variation' in relevant experiments. Obviously, it is "establishment" 'myths' that impose 'preferred interpretations' where they are not needed. Look to reality explanations, not myths. :)

VD and RC two things you don't want in sensitive areas....like the physorg comments. Ruins the whole equilibrium. To top it all off it's just one guy agreeing with himself.

Hehehe. By all means don't let the facts get in the way of your 'opinions'. I have no idea who VendicarD is, nor do I really care. I only discuss the facts in evidence in this case, and not the man. Try it sometime, mate. :)

RealityCheck, what about the Lorentz mass increase that is routinely observed (in particle accelerators, particularly)? If that is as real as it seems to be, then why discard the other result of the Lorentz equations: length decrease?

If a massive star gains mass as it gains speed in approaching a black hole, what do you suppose the result would be? I dispute general and special relativity. There are no black holes, no expanding universe, no big bang, no time dilation, and no warping of space time. Read my theories at http://www.scribd...heories.

What a busy place the center of our Milky Way galaxy is, with the bustle of stars highlighted in this article and the galactic cloud G2, due to reach galactic perihelion in 2013: http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1414

...what about the Lorentz mass increase that is routinely observed (in particle accelerators, particularly)? If that's as real as it seems to be, then why discard the other result of the Lorentz equations: length decrease?

Particle accelerator Magnets impart electromagnetic energy when accelerating and controlling the particle/system. Particle/system energy INCREASE is what shows up as 'mass increase' etc. It does not result in distance/particle contraction or time slowing. Like I said, all the observed phenomena is explained directly by the ENERGY ACCOUNTING, which result in 'values' variations for seconds/masses which are then misinterpreted to fit a theory rather than just being recognized as the reality AS OBSERVED and not to assume/misinterpret it to remain consistent with establishment 'myths'. It's all in the energy content, its effects on internal inertia/processes (clock tick/rates/counts). The actual 'distance' and 'time' is unchanged, as explained before. :)

You still need to explain why, then, there is mass/energy increase AND time slowing (as demonstrated by cosmic-ray mesons lasting long enough to reach detectors on the ground), but NOT length decrease. As I said, all three of these come out of the Lorentz equations.

This is what happens when scientific 'establisment' becomes an incestuous circle of…[\q]

In a highly competitive field, this comment might actually win the award for the most anti-intellectual, pseudo-scientific, unlettered and rambling stream of barely sentient consciousness I have ever come across in my 38 years on this planet.

My 8 year old nephew would be able to articulate a more coherent critique of this article by banging a keyboard with no vowels with a stick. In the dark. On a skateboard.

Can this be the first time that part of an entire set of equations (interpretations) fits all data and observations to date and yet the rest of the equations lack an interpretation (entirely) or an interpretation consistence with the first proposed interpretation fitting data and observation?

The objections to Reality Check's 'take' on reality remains uncontested. Perhaps a further reply from Reality Check will dispel the objections.

RealityCheck, what about the Lorentz mass increase that is routinely observed (in particle accelerators, particularly)? If that is as real as it seems to be, then why discard the other result of the Lorentz equations: length decrease?

Well, if a particle is moving fast enough, then if Relativity both increase that particle's mass and decreases it's length, then when it is moving fast enough it would become a disk-shaped black hole in one reference frame, while appearing unchanged in another reference frame.

This paradox is unacceptable.

For example, if a particle is moving 0.999c it will have 22.366 times the mass, and 0.0447 of the length, therefore 0.0447 of the volume, therefore the density of such an particle becomes roughly 500 times the original density in one reference frame, while being unchanged in a co-moving reference frame.

As you can see, tack on a few extra "9's" for accelerator speeds, and the particle should become a microscopic black hole.

In order to make a black hole with schwartzchild radius equal to one nanometer requires a mere 8.3408e-17 kg.

Proton mass = 1.672621777(74)e−27 kg. (wiki)

Now that's ten orders of magnitude.

Every 2 "9's" in the decimal as a fraction of the speed of light causes Lorentz formula to increase the mass by an additional order of magnitude, AND reduce the length by roughly 1.5 orders of magnitude.

So the density of the proton would go up by a factor of roughly 500 for every two "9's" in the decimal place.

The scharzchild radius for a relativistic proton increases by a factor of 100 for ever two 9's in the decimal place of the velocity as a fraction of c, therefore a proton moving with 9 additions "9's" in it's velocity would become a black hole.

So then a Proton should become a microscopic black hole when it's velocity equals or exceeds 0.999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,995,1c

I used comas to help count, even though I'm not sure if that's proper. That's 32 i's and a 51.

This looks like a lot, but if they detected a proton with 9 fewer 9's for it's velocity, then I see no reason why "somewhere" and "somehow" in the universe there wouldn't be a proton with this much velocity. It would seem like there would have to be such particles somewhere.

1, So then how would we detect them?

2, are they large enough to consume other sub-atomic particles, or are they too small to interact?

what I found above is that since the mass increases by an order of magnitude per 2 9's and the length decreases by an order of magnitude per 2 9's, then the schwarzchild radius converges on Planck Length as v approaches:

v = 0.999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,995,1c

It turns out this is, within margin of error of the numbers cited by wiki, the exact speed at which a proton should become a black hole, and it's also the exact speed at which the proton's length becomes exactly twice the Planck length, or it's radius in the direction of motion is compressed to Planck length.

Surely this would be a microscopic black hole, but I don't think our accelerators have gotten that fast.

You can't do the math for this in a calculator, because the calculator doesn't have large enough variables to save the values to enough significant digits to do it with enough precision to be useful.

... therefore not only slows down the flow of time but also stretches or shrinks distances.

This is what happens when scientific 'establisment' becomes an incestuous circle of 'believers' in their own nonsense fairy stories about the actual observations.

No, this is what happens when popular press authors dumb science down to the point where it has more in common with discredited nineteenth century concepts than current theories. "Caveat Emptor!" indeed.

Well, if a particle is moving fast enough, then if Relativity both increase that particle's mass and decreases it's length, then when it is moving fast enough it would become a disk-shaped black hole in one reference frame, while appearing unchanged in another reference frame.

This paradox is unacceptable.

Most of the posts in this thread are based on misconceptions.

Relativity says that mass is invariant, it does not change with speed. It also says that, in their own rest frame, moving objects do not shrink and clocks tick normally. All the effects observed are geometric in origin and result from projection of values in one coordinate frame onto a different set of axes.

Both theories result in the same maths in flat space (the Lorentz Transforms) hence cannot be distinguised experimentally or by thought experiments, you are wasting your time trying.

The reason why relativity is overwhelming accepted is that it was extended to GR which models gravity. In GR, the geometrical basis of special relativity is modified to include 4D curvature driven by the stress-energy tensor (for example in the form of mass). There has never been an aether-based equivalent and the limit of GR as the mass tends to zero is the geometry of the Minkowski Metric, i.e. special relativity. GR is of course extraordinarily well supported by experiment and observation.

Relativity says that mass is invariant, it does not change with speed. It also says that, in their own rest frame, moving objects do not shrink and clocks tick normally. All the effects observed are geometric in origin and result from projection of values in one coordinate frame onto a different set of axes.

Who's relativity are you using?

Einstein's relativity most definitely says that mass is variant from one reference frame to another, and it varies by a scale of 1/(sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))).

Therefore if a proton is moving at the velocity I gave above, with the 32 "9's," as measured in some reference frame "A," then in the co-moving reference frame, that is the frame where the proton appears stationary, the proton will be a black hole, at least based on the VARIABLE mass and length predicted by Einstein's and Lorentz equations combined with the escape velocity equation (to find the schwartzchild radius.

The variance of mass is one of the primary reasons accelerating a star ship to relativistic speeds is widely considered to be impossible or nearly so, and in the realm of science fiction/fantasy. This is why scientists attempt to solve alternative field problems like gravity manipulation or EM manipulation to warp space itself instead of "propulsion".

Truth be told, we couldn't accelerate a ship anywhere near the speed of light, even if only Newton's mechanics were true, nevermind Einstein's relativity, because the variance of mass really doesn't become logistically significant until 0.3c anyway. If you can accelerate to 0.3c in Newton's mechanics, then the extra ~5% mass predicted by Relativity equations is not that big of a deal after all, and only requires a relatively small increase in fuel to fix.

When you get to like 0.6c, you're an extra 80% of mass. As I recall, the fuel requirement of an ideal rocket goes up by power of 1.5, so needs ~2.42 times fuel of Newton's mechanics.

All of that being said, we can't even get to 0.1c, and relativity has almost no effect at or below 0.1c, an increase of only 0.5% of mass.

This means that contrary to popular understanding, further increases of our rocket ships velocity is not significantly impacted by the Theory of Relativity AT ALL until at least about 0.3c to 0.4c, which we are nowhere near achieving.

The limits of Newtonian mechanics alone is far more than we have ever come close to overcoming.

New Horizons spacecraft velocity: 21km/s = 21,000m/s

This is 14,278 times less than the speed of light, or ~1,428 times less than 0.1c.

0.1c is the slowest that you could theoretically travel in a colony ship to make it between two nearby stars in one "generation," as used for the unit corresponding to about 40 years.

Since mass is only affected by one half of one percent at this velocity, then Relativity is not the main prohibition to interstellar travel, because we can't even move fast enough for it to be a factor.

Relativity says that mass is invariant, it does not change with speed.

How is it possible, after then, the electrons in outer shells of heavy atoms are moving with relativistic speed and their orbitals are relatively smaller, after then? For example they yellow http://www.fourmi...n_glow/, low melting point of mercury and/or high oxidation potential of lead dioxide is explained just with larger mass of outer electrons, which is routinely attributed to relativity.

As I said, the two approaches result in identical equations so in every situation, they both make identical predictions. SR can never be distinguished from LET directly (but GR reduces to SR, not LET).

I am discussing standard undergraduate relativity as it is taught as a precursor to GR. See Taylor & Wheeler "Spacetime Physics" for example.

Therefore if a proton is moving at the velocity I gave above, with the 32 "9's," as measured in some reference frame "A," then in the co-moving reference frame, that is the frame where the proton appears stationary, the proton will be a black hole, at least based on the VARIABLE mass and length predicted by Einstein's and Lorentz equations combined with the escape velocity equation (to find the schwartzchild radius.

Exactly, it would be paradoxical for it to be a proton in one frame but a black hole in another. The real science is unambiguous, a proton is a proton regardless of the frame of the observer.

The variance of mass is one of the primary reasons accelerating a star ship to relativistic speeds is widely considered to be impossible ..

The energy required rises non-linearly to infinity when v=c. You can treat that using the Newtonian equation for kinetic energy and infer that mass increases but the geometric understanding of relativity merely uses a more complex equation with invariant mass.

There's nothing wrong with using relativistic mass as long as you are careful to account for all effects but you need to understand the invariant approach too if you want to go on to understand GR.

Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with.

The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with.

Similarly, Newton wrote in the Scholium of the Principia that space was absolute and there was such a thing as absolute motion relative to that space, but in the mechanics he derived from that notion, any hint of absolute motion disappears and is replaced by Galilean Relativity. Einstein's experiments on the photoelectric effect were the basis for QM (Planck's original understanding was that EM radiation was bursts of waves rather than particles) yet Einstein never accepted QM. It is not unusual for scientists to be responsible for breakthroughs with which they are subsequently uncomfortable.

However, that is all irrelevant, it is a matter of fact that the equations of GR are purely geometric and Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant regardless of the preferences of their authors.

If a massive star gains mass as it gains speed in approaching a black hole, what do you suppose the result would be? I dispute general and special relativity. There are no black holes, no expanding universe, no big bang, no time dilation, and no warping of space time. Read my theories at http://www.scribd...heories.

Before YOU can have a theory, you must first have some piece,,, some infinitesimal part, some fragment,,,, no matter how small,,,, of the reality we find ourselves in to base your theory on.

Your reality is in some universe completely outside of the universe you are finding yourself stranded in. I can see why you are a failed science FICTION writer.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot,,,, please never, ever, help your kids with their homework,,, otherwise they will find themselves the objects of ridicule and derision.

Strip the trailing period off his malformed link and you can witness the firepower of his fully armed and operational battle station of love.

Thanks, that is more fun than a person deserves in this life. The "Yarbrough Paradoxes" are a hoot. They sound like the writings of a person with a sever delusional disorder fueled by some sort of illegal substance. If he had spent the time required to write all that drivel actually reading and studying, he would be a post-doc by now.

The variance of mass is one of the primary reasons accelerating a star ship to relativistic speeds is widely considered to be impossible or nearly so

-Except that you are completely wrong or nearly so:

"Later studies indicate that the top cruise velocity that can theoretically be achieved by a thermonuclear Orion starship, assuming no fuel is saved for slowing back down, is about 8% to 10% of the speed of light (0.08-0.1c). An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 3%-5% of the speed of light. A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by matter-antimatter pulse units would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light. In each case saving fuel for slowing down halves the max. speed."

You still need to explain why, then, there is mass/energy increase AND time slowing (as demonstrated by cosmic-ray mesons lasting long enough to reach detectors on the ground), but NOT length decrease. As I said, all three of these come out of the Lorentz equations.

Support your claims with actual mathematics (or links thereto).

The maths is unchanged, it is the assumptions and interpretations that are garbage in garbage out. Muons created in lab have lower velocity than one created by incoming cosmic ray hitting high in atmosphere, so its internal decay-processes (like a clock tick rate) proceed at faster rate than those of much higher energy muon. Time does not dilate nor distance shrink, the internal decay processes of higher energy muon are slowed down (like clock processes), and muon travels further to reach ground before decaying. No biggie. All the other assumptions ignore this real observation in preference for theoretical 'fitting' of it. No more need be said. :)

Muons created in lab have lower velocity than one created by incoming cosmic ray hitting high in atmosphere, so its internal decay-processes (like a clock tick rate) proceed at faster rate than those of much higher energy muon.

That is just the LET interpretation of the effects. To explain the MMX, you also need length contraction and to explain the reduced acceleration of high speed electrons in electric fields measured by Thomson you need relativistic mass but taken together these ad hoc phenomena produce identical results to SR.

As I said in a previous post, it is only when you move on to GR that the interpretations can be distinguished.

...To explain the MMX, you also need length contraction and to explain the reduced acceleration of high speed electrons in electric fields measured by Thomson you need relativistic mass but taken together these ad hoc phenomena produce identical results to SR.

LIke I said, the accelerator imparts additional energy to accelerated particle. The internal energy state increases its internal inertia and slows its internal processes which are interacting with accelerating fields, such that a feedback loop of more-inertia-slower-interaction-processes-with-external-fields is established....which results in lesser and lesser effectiveness of any constant external field acceleration force, so increase in external field strength is less and less effective as particle internal energy/inertia increases and slows interaction and increases 'latency of acceleration effect' in a non-linear way. :)

...To explain the MMX, you also need length contraction and to explain the reduced acceleration of high speed electrons in electric fields measured by Thomson you need relativistic mass but taken together these ad hoc phenomena produce identical results to SR.

The internal energy state increases its internal inertia ...

Or "relativistic mass" as it is usually known. You also need length contraction and since these are observer independent effects, the cause needs to be velocity relative to some reference, the substance commonly called the "luminiferous aether".

Hi Fleetfoot. Even increased internal energy imparted by acceleration from 0 to non-relativistic speeds would impart additional internal inertia and slow internal processes from 'ground state' rate. This is demonstrated by the clocks on fast planes experiments. The only observation is that more extreme increasing energy causes non-linear slowing rate. That's all. So relativistic speed effects reflect that non-linearity. No need to invoke distance or particle "contraction" to interpret the maths using the non-linearly-slowed processes/interactions over time/distance covered. This makes all those theoretical "contractions" assumptions/interpretations of the observed non-linear effects unnecessary. So why "you also need contraction"? And my universal medium is more fundamental than any classic "luminiferous" or other higher level "aethers/vacua". So I haven't "just restated" any other theory, since mine doesn't depend on "contraction" and "dilation" assumptions/interpretations at all. :)

The difference between clocks in relative motion is observed, internal changes is one interpretation but it also matches SR's geometric explanation.

So why "you also need contraction"?

Because the amount of clock slowing observed on planes is the square root of the total effect in the MMX. You need length contraction by an equal amount to explain the null result of the MMX. Put those together and you get LET.

Hi Fleetfoot. No mate, the differing 'tick count absolute numbers' can be compared afterwards. The clock tick-process-rate differences real and correlate to speed-over-space-traveled, irrespective of later abstract 'relativity/geometry' interpretations

I'm not sure why you say "no", I wasn't disagreeing with the fact that it is observed, just noting that it doesn't distinguish between the interpretations.

MMX results also support MY TOE perspective that space/aether does NOT COUPLE physically to photons, ..

I think you need to look up the experiment, to explain the null result, aether theory needs to assume that the material of the arms of the interferometer is length-contracted, not the photons. Materials such as invar alloy or fused quartz have been used for example.

Hi Fleetfoot. The "no" was to your "relative" and "indistinguishable" interpretation. Pointing out that the differing clock 'absolute counts' were just that, "absolute cumulative count values" and not "relative" to anything. So both 'relativity' and anything else (except what causes speed through space to affect clock tick counts 'absolute number' values) is irrelevant assumptions/interpretations from some theory or other rather than just direct observed phenomena as reality needing no theory to explain except to provide whatever real physical context it is happening in. Whether conventional space/aether etc theories (both old and new) is explicable by theory is still open to debate. In my TOE perspective the energy-space (not aether or vacuum) is the fundamental context. Such assumed/interpreted "contraction/dilation" of particles, distances (interferometer "arms" etc) or time is not necessary in that underlying more fundamental context. We agree on *almost* everything, though! :)

The dilatation of time can be modeled easily with spreading of transverse ripples at the water surface. This doesn't imply the existence of reference frame, just because the transverse waves are background independent in all material media, including the vacuum. The surface ripples don't care about motion of water, until they're actually transverse.

Hi Fleetfoot. The "no" was to your "relative" and "indistinguishable" interpretation. Pointing out that the differing clock 'absolute counts' were just that, "absolute cumulative count values" and not "relative" to anything.

Ah, ok, thanks for clearing that up. When we say a clock on a plane is slowed due to speed, that means it produces fewer ticks over some arbitrary duration than a clock which is not moving, i.e. it is relative to a "stationary" clock.

Such assumed/interpreted "contraction/dilation" of particles, distances (interferometer "arms" etc) or time is not necessary ..

It may not be a necessary part of your ideas, but it is necessary experimentally. If length contraction doesn't come out of your maths as well as clock slowing, it will fail to predict the null result for the MMX.

The dilatation of time can be modelled easily with spreading of transverse ripples at the water surface. This doesn't imply the existence of reference frame, just because the transverse waves are background independent in all material media, including the vacuum. The surface ripples don't care about motion of water, until they're actually transverse.

Rubbish, the wave motion is the vector sum of the motion of each point on the wave relative to the source plus the flow of the water. Try adding a flow of the medium to your animation and see what happens.

Hi Fleetfoot. :) Again, "no". The clock counts reflect absolute changes in the state of the SAME clock under different 'speed' runs. No need for another clock, just take same clock at one non-relativistic) speed over a course; then at another significantly different (non-relativistic) speed and just compare accumulated absolute counts from 'reset-zero' of each run. See? Absolute counts in same clock at different runs of different speeds. No other clock to be 'relative' to. Nothing else need be involved except one clock at different-speed runs over same-energy-space.

And the MMX interpretation as "also requiring contraction" is an unnecessary 'artifact' of the abstract/theory mathematical/geometrical equations/analysis construct which are invalidly overlain on the actual observation/data. It is the assumptions/interpretations therefrom that are misleading. Garbage in garbage out. If observations are left to speak for themselves (as I pointed out), no such 'overlays' necessary. :)

Hi Fleetfoot. :) Again, "no". The clock counts reflect absolute changes in the state of the SAME clock under different 'speed' runs. No need for another clock, just take same clock at one non-relativistic) speed over a course; then at another significantly different (non-relativistic) speed and just compare accumulated absolute counts from 'reset-zero' of each run. See? Absolute counts in same clock at different runs of different speeds. No other clock to be 'relative' to.

Then you have no way of determining the duration over which the counts occur. You need two

And the MMX interpretation as "also requiring contraction" is an unnecessary 'artifact' of the abstract/theory ..

No, it is nothing more complex than Pythagoras theorem. Try working it out yourself, there are plenty of explanations all over the web.

Graphic at top of article looks wrong to me, shouldnt the laser adaptive optics "star" beams be parallel?

No. The artificial star is created by disturbing the air with the energy of intersecting laser beams. Each beam causes disturbance all along its length, but the disturbance at the intersection point (which is set at the desired altitude) makes the reference "star".

Graphic at top of article looks wrong to me, shouldnt the laser adaptive optics "star" beams be parallel?

No. The artificial star is created by disturbing the air with the energy of intersecting laser beams. Each beam causes disturbance all along its length, but the disturbance at the intersection point (which is set at the desired altitude) makes the reference "star".

No, each beam creates its own reference by exciting sodium atoms in the ionosphere, they are in fact essentially parallel. The apparent convergence is just an example of perspective:

Try adding a flow of the medium to your animation and see what happens.

The spreading of transverse waves doesn't depend on the "flow of the medium". Until these waves are transverse, then the motion of their environment has no meaning by the whole definition of the "transverse" word. Actually the tiny capillary waves at the water surface aren't affected with motion of underwater very much, as they're driven with surface tension of water nearly completely. Therefore my model remains physical even from the water surface perspective.

Then you have no way of determining the duration over which the counts occur. You need two.

No, it is nothing more complex than Pythagoras theorem. Try working it out yourself, there are plenty of explanations all over the web.

Oh, I see what you're getting at. :) All that the plane needs is the usual speed indicator system (Pitot Tube or whatever) already calibrated for speed readout during two runs over same route distance. Two different 'Pitot Tube indicator' speeds over same route will do. The 'standard run' is set with the first run, and the second run will tell what's what when compared. The test clock's 'absolute counts' just have to be sufficiently different for each run to show the speed-related 'tick process slowing' for the faster speed run.

Correct, it it just tells you the length of the hypotenuse given the other two sides, but the point is that that is all the "complex maths" you need to show that there would be a fringe shift in the MMX if clocks slow but the arms don't contract. As I said, look up the analysis and try it for yourself, you'll find you cannot get a null prediction without length contraction.

Try adding a flow of the medium to your animation and see what happens.

The spreading of transverse waves doesn't depend on the "flow of the medium". Until these waves are transverse, then the motion of their environment has no meaning by the whole definition of the "transverse" word. Actually the tiny capillary waves at the water surface aren't affected with motion of underwater very much, as they're driven with surface tension of water nearly completely. Therefore my model remains physical even from the water surface perspective.

Nope, the motion is simply the vector sum of the two motion components (wave and medium) for gravity waves and capillary. Liquids don't support transverse modes (i.e. HORIZONTAL displacement of the surface perpendicular to the direction of propagation).

Hi Fleetfoot.Yeah, that's what I meant when I said "Oh, I see what you're getting at." :)

But it can be done by establishing standard run 'count' at one very slow speed and then make same run at higher speed. Neither speed need be 'measured' as such, just observed to BE one much slower than the other. It is sufficient to know that the fuel consumption and drag effects etc on plane have increased during second (hence faster) run over same distance/route. No other 'timing' involved. Same test clock; differing counts for demonstrably slow/faster runs. ;-)

Re MMX: But there is no 'clock' and hence no 'contraction' element in MMX setup or analysis assumptions. Hence no need to include any 'time' or 'contraction' in analysis of results. Just behaviour of the photons.

But not necessarily the same distance, that's why I emphasised "unambiguous".

Re MMX: But there is no 'clock' and hence no 'contraction' element in MMX setup or analysis assumptions. Hence no need to include any 'time' or 'contraction' in analysis of results. Just behaviour of the photons.

The cycles of the light act as a clock. As I said, try doing the calculation, you will find you cannot make it work without length contraction. This was known in the 19th century, it is a really trivial piece of maths and written up in many web sites.

Hi Fleetfoot.The route distance is between markers for different runs over same route. No need to invoke subtle assumptions about such gross start-end points for same clock count start-end over same route for slow/fast runs.

Re MMX: No need for 'cycles' to be clocks. The leading and trailing edge of beams/waveforms is what it is. Direct overlay between split beam components will tell absolute beam/waveform differences (if any) by that overlay (interference indicates difference, no interference indicates no difference in waveform (leading-edge to trailing edge for each 'leg' beams). No need to introduce 'timing' of events or any 'contraction' to explain something that is not inherently required for the 'events' to take place and compared absolutely between split beam fronts/rears at overlay stage for extracting 'interference (or not) information in absolute pattern terms. No maths/clock/other abstract assumptions/analysis required.

The route distance is between markers for different runs over same route. No need to invoke subtle assumptions about such gross start-end points for same clock count start-end over same route for slow/fast runs.

Not the point, you need to prove it doesn't change, you can't just assume success.

Re MMX: No need for 'cycles' to be clocks. ... No maths/clock/other abstract assumptions/analysis required.

Sorry, the onus is on you to prove your theory. The hint is - if you try, you'll find you can't do it.

[Not the point, you need to prove it doesn't change, you can't just assume success.

Sorry, the onus is on you to prove your theory. The hint is - if you try, you'll find you can't do it.

I think you have that back-to-front, mate. The observed distance markers are the same for each run (unless the earth's diameter shrunk between runs ;-) ). And since it is others' theories that assume/posit change (contraction), then the onus is on those with those theories who must 'prove' it does change. But all they do is overlay assumptions and mathematical ad hoc 'adjustment factors' in order to make the observed reality of th run results 'fit' into THEIR theory, rather than the other way round. Reality speaks, and I don't make any theory but observe the results that indicate something is affecting the same clock over different speed regime runs over same distance. No more, no less. I have nothing to 'prove'; others have, but fail in light of the reality observed. Bye.:)

The observed distance markers are the same for each run (unless the earth's diameter shrunk between runs ;-) And since it is others' theories that assume/posit change (contraction), then the onus is on those with those theories who must 'prove' it does change.

Fair point but they did that a century ago, both LET and SR are self-consistent theories and match the relevant observations. Now it's your turn.

What you claim is that motion relative to causes clocks to slow down by a certain amount. The MMX observationally produces a null result when moving relative to the same which means the speed of light is invariant. The onus is on you to explain that null result, and since you use the same clock slowing factor as used by LET, I think you will find you have to have the same formula for length contraction to achieve that.

Hi Fleetfoot. Reality also self-consistent. :) For clocks to change motion from existing state with respect to energy-space, we add energy in one direction or another which either slows or speeds up that prior motion with respect to energy-space. Hence slowing/accelerating tick rates observed in reality. However, light in energy-space we cannot speed up or slow down, it travels at light speed limit at emission. MMX photons remain as emitted until reception irrespective of the 'leg' they traveled. Hence null result. Once emitted, only by changing receiving conditions (dopplering motion of receiver OR receiver at different gravitational potential (altitude) from emitter in gravity well) will photon be received as 'different'. No change in MMX emitter/receiver motion/position, hence null result.

For clocks to change motion from existing state with respect to energy-space, we add energy in one direction or another which either slows or speeds up that prior motion with respect to energy-space. Hence slowing/accelerating tick rates observed in reality.

There is no "hence" in what you say, just an ad hoc assumption but no matter, LET was always empirical.

Ah, the penny drops, your "hence" is justified this time but that's a different model originally proposed by Ritz in 1908. It was clearly disproved by Sagnac in 1913 (although other observations such as binary star systems made it untenable before it was published).

I hadn't realised you were cherry-picking phenomena from different conflicting models, clock slowing doesn't happen in Ritz's "ballistic" theory but Sagnac rules it out with or without that effect.

Hi Fleetfoot. No cherry-picking at all. Mere observation without theoretical overlays. In light ring experiments, rotation makes doppler effects one way (wavelength increase) and opposite way (wavelength decrease) the other, as the reflections are made while the mirrors/glass surfaces/emag fields are moving around as they rotate with respect to inertial energy-space frame. All these other theoretical overlays are quite silly. They 'require' so called 'space contraction' and 'time dilation' instead of just looking at the reality of MOTIONS/ENERGY involved and direct effects of same (be it on clock tick rates, mirror-photon dopplering etc etc). It's not me that is 'cherry-picking' things from theory to overlay on the reality observations as they are. Why try to 'fit' these real observed facts into standard and non-standard pet theories requiring contortions of that reality in order to 'fit'. No need for it. Reality is enough to be going on with. Cheers!

That's a common mistake, there are doppler effects if viewed from the lab but in the Sagnac experiment, the interferometer is also on the table and rotating at the same rate as the source so there is no Doppler between them. If there were, the fringes would move at a common rate but they are actually static.

The interferometer actually measures the phase difference, not frequency and if Ritz's theory were correct, there would be no shift (if neither distance nor speed relative to the source are changed, neither is the time delay hence the phase on arrival). In reality, there is a fringe shift proportional to the angular velocity which cannot be explained by Doppler. Again, this is common knowledge if you do a little research, it's been known since 1913.

The effect is used in optical gyroscopes in aircraft and inertial navigation systems and could not exist if the ballistic model were correct.

Hi Fleetfoot. Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear. I already agree with you. The Doppler shifts cancel out, hence my previous observation that photons do not couple to space, but are affected only by the source/reflector/receiver emag states and motions. The phase shift is what tells that the emag field with the mirrors is moving and the absorption/reemission is ADVANCED ALONG WITH the ring rotation one way while it is RETARDED AGAINST the ring rotation the other way. The only way to CANCEL THAT effect (like cancelled Dopplering in the one ring) is to have a DOUBLE RING "figure eight" ( 8 ) setup where the SAME two light beams go around one ring (rotating one way) and then the other ring (rotating opposite way) before coming back to the common point for interferometer matching. If you get my drift? I will be carrying out that experiment as soon as I publish my existing work. Cheers. :)

The phase shift is what tells that the emag field with the mirrors is moving and the absorption/reemission is ADVANCED ALONG WITH the ring rotation one way while it is RETARDED AGAINST the ring rotation the other way.

That's a bit ambiguously stated but I think you have it the wrong way round, in reality, the beam going the same way as the rotation is retarded because it has farther to travel (in the lab frame). They both travel the same distance in the rotating frame hence ballistic theory predicts no phase difference.

The only way to CANCEL THAT effect (like cancelled Dopplering in the one ring) is to have a DOUBLE RING "figure eight" .. I will be carrying out that experiment ..

That would cancel it out in all the models so doesn't give any new information, what you need to do is explain (show by calculation) why there is a fringe shift in Sagnac's setup.

Hi Fleetfoot. I haven't fully described the proposed setup(s) using double/multiple rings. They allow things which the single ring setups cannot. I can offset the rings to various angles. Also I can spin the whole setup introducing further subtle motional differences in various ways. So far I have identified 5 and possibly more variables I can introduce which will allow any subtle effects to 'accumulate' to observable values. Also I can introduce 'control' states which can eliminate certain possibilities. Sorry I cannot go into further detail at this time, these experiments await me when I have finished/published my current project. I won't be back for a while, as I have to concentrate on finishing present work. So if I don't speak with you for a while, please don't take it amiss! It's been good talking to you (and others also)! Cheers and good luck to you all! Bye. :)

Hi Fleetfoot. I haven't fully described the proposed setup(s) using double/multiple rings. They allow things which the single ring setups cannot.

Explaining the existing results remains your first challenge, if you can't do that, you don't have a base from which to extend the experiment.

I won't be back for a while, as I have to concentrate on finishing present work. So if I don't speak with you for a while, please don't take it amiss! It's been good talking to you (and others also)! Cheers and good luck to you all! Bye. :)

I'm getting very busy organising some events next month too, it's been fun. Good luck.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.